Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
I'm merely using the generally accepted definition of the term "legalistic" (a term you threw out there, by the way) within a Christian religious context. Since we are talking Christian context, what other definition ought we to use?
|
I would suggest the one the Spirit gives you, or whatever one does not create an arbitrary wall, and a "them" to oppose "us." We have plenty of Scripture for this, but we seize upon the divisive ones for standards, always with the best of intentions of course.
I mean our definition for "Christ" in this instance, not "legalism;" we insist upon a literal understanding of Jesus, and ignore that Christ is a Spirit that is not bound by our definitions. We have many parables that describe those who claimed to know Christ, or said they would follow Christ, and were shown to be unacceptable. And vice-versa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
I fail to see how? Elucidate?
|
well, it has already been disallowed on this forum, but the point is that Christ is a Spirit,
the Spirit, and has many Names, Master of the Universe, Love, even Forgiveness, and probably Repentance, and is not bound by our iconic definitions of Jesus. Iow, just because one has found some passage in Romans that might seem to restrict the definition of "believer" to them does not mean that that is the whole picture, just like
Acts 2:38 is not, as great as it is when understood.
No one has a corner on God, iow. Nor Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
How or in what way do you know this to be not true, (in a sense)?
|
well, we have Scripture for this, even the fact that if there is no law there is no sin describes it, and also that it is built into our nature. Those with more knowledge are held to a higher standard, while the ignorant are judged differently. Pastors--or those with, or at least who claim, knowledge of God are held to a higher standard, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
He seemed to consult with Abraham regarding Sodom and Gomorrah, and was willing to take counsel from him regarding what He should or shouldn't do to those cities.
|
did He? was the outcome changed by Abe? Or was the passage more about revealing Abe's heart? His desire to save a wicked place, perhaps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
Is Scripture then un-usable? What purpose does it serve?
|
look, i don't mean to completely ignore any passage, even the rather confusing Romans one. By all means apply it to the fullest--in your own walk. But requiring anyone else to believe just like you do or be damned is worse than judging another man's servant, and at least as bad as trying to pick splinters from someone else's eye.
And this is the purpose of Scripture, imo, to reveal these human shortcomings to us. To reveal our hearts. "All _______ are lost" ultimately reveals nothing about ________, as it is meant to do, but about the one proclaiming it. Whether they are "all" lost or not ceases to even be relevant; the arbitrary superiority that one bestows upon themselves in saying something like this comes to the fore.
It is naive to assume that this can be said in passing, or in love, without spiritual consequences; the "lost" are naturally to be looked down upon, and treated differently. How would you feel if someone told you that you were lost, and they could help you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
In what way can a Muslim emulate the Son of God when he or she denies Him? How does that work? Do as I do, but not as I say?
|
it is the difference in verbal agreement v spiritual alignment. How is the First Son accepted when the Second Son is not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
And you know this how? How do you judge the merits or authenticity of who is and who is not a legitimate Muslim? The Qu'ran? What is the basis upon which one can determine who is the real deal versus who is not, in Islam?
|
Islam, Christianity, Hare Krishna, it doesn't matter. You will know them by their fruit. It is universal. Good fruit comes from good trees. Those who exhibit the fruit of the spirit are accepted, while those, even the ones crying 'Lord, Lord,' who do not, are not. So imo totally ignore what a person professes to you, and observe how they act toward you when they don't know you are looking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
Is there no basic confession of Christian faith necessary? It's all in how one acts and behaves, inward convictions of what is and is not true, be damned?
|
i wouldn't put it that way, but i would note how we have warped the basic confession, perhaps, without meaning to. I would say one's inward convictions should culminate in how they act and behave, should they not? If your inward conviction is that you should be carrying your cross, and not be picking splinters out of others eyes, or judging another guy's servant, then how does "They are all lost" line up with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
No man can call Jesus "Lord" except through the Holy Spirit, and no one is going to experience Holy Spirit glossalalia without first having received the Holy Spirit. So, speaking in tongues is one way to certify that a person has received Jesus as Lord at some point in life. God only gives the Holy Spirit to them who obey Him ( Acts 5:32). Or was Simon Peter wrong, or is the transmission of the Acts of the Apostles in error?
|
or is the understanding provided to you a forced perspective, to enthrone an earthly priesthood? More de facto RCCism, imo. Note that our current "tongues" does not amaze any crowds, like back then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
The tone here suggests a begrudgement. Why so callously dismiss people like this?
|
i'll have to find the orig quote and come back, but i don't advocate any action toward others, please note, but seeking your own salvation here. Stay with the people, if you like; the point is to run from the teaching, which is not grace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
This is rather judgmental, shazeep. You are making some assumptions for which you offer no proof. Further, what you are intimating is nothing less than a Bible-less Christianity, in which no one anywhere, ever, has to submit himself or herself to any form of inspection according to the Holy Scriptures.
|
well, i would disagree, and suggest that it is the premise of "helping the lost" to avoid self-reflection--as anyone who assumes that they are accepted might fall into--that is the root of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
There is then, no way for anyone to protect themselves from wolves in sheep's clothing. We must merely accept all upon no actual basis, since we might somehow be "ignoring other Scripture that [would give] a more complete understanding".
|
fruit doesn't lie; judge people by their fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by votivesoul
Anyone who has had a bona-fide, saving encounter with the risen Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, will be changed, and that change will cause him or her to swear allegiance to Him, by default. Or else Jesus isn't who He claimed to be and He doesn't have the power to save anyone.
|
ok well that is your definition, the one provided to you, no less, and you are welcome to it. The Second Son agrees with you, swears up and down etc, but has no fruit. A seeker, perceiving Christians of this nature, might reject your definitions wholesale in an effort to not be like them, and still be accepted.
So yes, it is like jumping off a cliff in a sense, but the rest of Scripture will suddenly make a lot more sense. If my neighbor is willing to defend me with his life, even metaphorically speaking, what do i care what he calls himself? Good fruit transcends religious understandings about salvation.
Linear Mode
